US can continue to withhold embassy cables already on WikiLeaks

A federal judge issues a summary judgment giving wide deference to State Dept.

In a summary judgment, a federal judge ruled (PDF) on Monday that the United States government can continue to classify and redact 23 embassy cables that have already been released in their entirety by WikiLeaks.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had previously filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that would compel the government to reveal embassy cables on topics as diverse as torture, detention, detainee rendition, Guantanamo, and drones. The State Department still maintains that the redacted sections of those cables are classified. When the State Department responded last year with some cables that had redacted sections and some cables that were withheld outright, the ACLU sued in federal court.

Not only have these 23 cables in question been available on WikiLeaks for quite some time, the ACLU had previously created an online tool allowing anyone to compare the redacted versions of five excerpts with the full versions as published on WikiLeaks.

The Monday decision finds that because the State Department (and therefore, the executive branch) classifies these sections as secret, and that those sections in question have not been “officially acknowledged,” (as defined in a 1990 appeals court decision), they remain secret.

“No matter how extensive, the WikiLeaks disclosure is no substitute for an official acknowledgement and the ACLU has not shown that the Executive has officially acknowledged that the specific information at issue was a part of the WikiLeaks disclosure,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Although the ACLU points to various public statements made by Executive officials regarding the WikiLeaks disclosure, it has failed to tether those generalized and sweeping comments to the specific information at issue in this case—the twenty-three embassy cables identified in its request.”

The ACLU argued that because the government responded to its FOIA last year, this constitutes public acknowledgement. By law, the government must release information in court that has already been officially acknowledged in public.

But the court disagreed. Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that because the ACLU specifically referred to the 23 cables by their name and date, and did not refer to the WikiLeaks disclosure, “the State Department made no admission by producing responsive records”—in other words, the disclosure of some information does not constitute an official acknowledgment of the withheld information that the State Department wishes to keep secret.

And why should the court believe the executive’s requests to keep it secret? The legal justification for allowing such secrecy essentially boils down to the court’s total willingness to comply with executive orders concerning secrecy.

“In recognition that courts are generally ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive’s opinion in the national security context, ‘the government’s burden [here] is a light one,’” she wrote, citing a previous case involving the ACLU.

It is sad that even after (so to speak) caught red handed, the State Department continues to claim no knowledge of such things. It is even more depressing that the American court system is happy to capitulate to the will of the State Department.

So if I understand it right, the court is saying "Yes we all know those documents exist and what's in them, but just for fun we'll pretend they're still secret"? I must be missing something because that seems ever so slightly completely pointless.

So if I understand it right, the court is saying "Yes we all know those documents exist and what's in them, but just for fun we'll pretend they're still secret"? I must be missing something because that seems ever so slightly completely pointless.

Only its not pointless, its far worse than that. It is likely so they can still punish people in this country for having that information. For example, I currently hold a security clearance from a previous job. When I got that I had to sign things that said I will treat classified information properly, if I don't I can get in lots of trouble (gross over-simplification, but it gets the point across). If I were to get this information off wikileaks and then do pretty much anything but report it to the government as an information leak I could be in trouble. At the time the leaks happened I had a DoD related job (hence the clearance) and they told us not to even view the information at home or else. This court decision essentially solidifies that.

It is sad that even after (so to speak) caught red handed, the State Department continues to claim no knowledge of such things. It is even more depressing that the American court system is happy to capitulate to the will of the State Department.

However, in both cases that was to be expected.

I gotta be honest, from a legal perspective it really does make sense. If I were to and release a memo from the Whitehouse, it would be kinda dumb to go "nuh-uh, here's the only memo we sent out that day". Even if my memo were essentially accurate, the details might matter.

Any manner other than under the law, it does seem odd. Under the circumstances it seems to me they should be voluntarily released, especially as our current President had transparency as one of his campaign items. I suppose maybe there's some missing bits between the leaked cables and the real ones, and he doesn't want "Misplaced nuclear launch authorization device, please check the embassy lobby" or something out in public. But the administration recently seems to have developed a fondness for digging itself into holes while trying to bury the bodies.

Personally, I think the US should charge the rest of the world licensing fees. You usually have to have scriptwriters for this kind of comedy.

Declassifying information is a formal process. Just because something got leaked to the public does not mean it is automatically no longer a secret, and does not mean the gov will acknowledge the validity of the leaked data.

They aren't "pretending" this information doesn't exist. They are treating the information as if it were a secret, because it still is.

Everyone pretty much knows what goes on at Groomlake, more or less, but the gov still isn't talking. That's because the base is still top secret despite anything the public may know. Same thing.

As to whether or not diplomatic cables should be secretive, that's an entirely different discussion. Personally I don't think they should be. Backroom deals are all too common in politics. Democracies should steer clear of such tactics.

Declassifying information is a formal process. Just because something got leaked to the public does not mean it is automatically no longer a secret, and does not mean the gov will acknowledge the validity of the leaked data.

They aren't "pretending" this information doesn't exist. They are treating the information as if it were a secret, because it still is.

It's not just the formality. A leak is not necessarily correct, nor does it necessarily have proper context. It's entirely possible that some of the wikileaks material was planted, a common counterintel tactic.

Basically, if I understand it correctly, is that what it boils down to is that because the government has not acknowledged the veracity of the specific leaked and unredacted cables in question, it's under no obligation to unredact the ones that have already been FOIA'd so others can compare their veracity. Makes sense to me. The government holds secrets, and has a standard for acknowledging and releasing those secrerts. That standard hasn't been met, and the fact those secrets may have been illegally compromised can't be used to force the governments hand.

As to whether or not diplomatic cables should be secretive, that's an entirely different discussion. Personally I don't think they should be. Backroom deals are all too common in politics. Democracies should steer clear of such tactics.

Diplomats require the freedom to be bluntly honest with their superiors and with foreign representatives without the entire world second guessing their words. Furthermore, diplomats often act as the first and most effective line of foreign intelligence that a nation possesses, and are also often the primary conduit through which sensitive information is passed between states. Breaking that confidentiality would kneecap the effectiveness of any diplomatic mission any where for any reason, and would simply force the real business to be conducted in through even darker and less accountable means.

Further proof the The United States of America as a country no longer exists and the corporation, established in 1871 called THE UNITED STATES is the unlawful but de facto govt of the physical territory of the The United States of America. The corporation only has authority over the District of Columbia and the territories it purchased or acquired; Puerto Rico, Guam, Virginia Islands, corporate versions of the states such as ALABAMA or AL, not Alabama. Its constitution is the 1871 amended version "CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES" and not the 1788 Original "Constitution for the united states" The "president" is not in fact the president as lead to believe but, just as you can see the Executive of the corporation.

People wonder why they can seemingly just throw the Constitution out the window when they want, suspend "rights" when all laws are supposed to be beholden to, not conflicting with the constitution and guaranteed rights? The corporation the THE UNITED STATES has no legal compulsion to do so, all acts of complying with it are merely for show.

"What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original Constitution.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the original Constitution, we the people now have "relative" rights or privileges. One example is the right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a "privilege" that requires citizens to be licensed."

The ACLU fighting this game is merely another one in the crowd, pretending that the emperor is actually wearing clothes, or maybe it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where, we're so screwed this is the best we got now.

The judges all know this of course, the current "courts" are the commercial courts of the corporation and its rules (being statutes), not of the physical landmass country The United States of America. A Gold fringed flag is the flag of the corporation, without a fringe is the flag of the physical country and depending on which flag you see waiving or on display (like a courthouse) you can tell which jurisdiction you're in.

Declassifying information is a formal process. Just because something got leaked to the public does not mean it is automatically no longer a secret, and does not mean the gov will acknowledge the validity of the leaked data.

They aren't "pretending" this information doesn't exist. They are treating the information as if it were a secret, because it still is.

It's not just the formality. A leak is not necessarily correct, nor does it necessarily have proper context. It's entirely possible that some of the wikileaks material was planted, a common counterintel tactic.

Precisely my thought. If I were having to deliver the redacted electronic documents, there would definitely be entire sections added to the document that would then be redacted back out to breed conspiracy theorists. Big black redacted sections, with maybe one or two cryptic words left in. Maybe a few keys sentences redacted in the middle of existing sentences, heck maybe even a paragraph and a half so a sentence in the Wikileaks document looks like it came from parts of two sentences in two swperate paragraphs.

Declassifying information is a formal process. Just because something got leaked to the public does not mean it is automatically no longer a secret, and does not mean the gov will acknowledge the validity of the leaked data.

They aren't "pretending" this information doesn't exist. They are treating the information as if it were a secret, because it still is.

It's not just the formality. A leak is not necessarily correct, nor does it necessarily have proper context. It's entirely possible that some of the wikileaks material was planted, a common counterintel tactic.

Precisely my thought. If I were having to deliver the redacted electronic documents, there would definitely be entire sections added to the document that would then be redacted back out to breed conspiracy theorists. Big black redacted sections, with maybe one or two cryptic words left in. Maybe a few keys sentences redacted in the middle of existing sentences, heck maybe even a paragraph and a half so a sentence in the Wikileaks document looks like it came from parts of two sentences in two swperate paragraphs.

Could you have sounded any more like a raving lunatic? The "Act of 1871" you and other Freeper dunderheads refer to is the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (which I notice that you and other conspiracist types avoid referring to by its proper name; I wonder why?). This act of Congress dealt solely with streamlining and modernizing how the government of Washington D.C proper was administered, the federal government's role in all of that, and the status of American citizens who lived in what was considered a unincorporated federal territory (as in not having a standing or fully functioning municipal government, as we would know it, for basic services such as sanitation and public works, among other things) up to that time:

Why are people so shocked by this? This isn't the government being dumb or trying to pull one over on the American public. Just because something is stolen or leaked the U.S. wont turn around and confirm they are true or accurate. Its been mentioned numerous time already but look at area 51. There are documentaries and even souvenirs you could by and the U.S. denied its existence for the longest time. (Look at the court case of those guys that tried suing because they got sick while working there and at first were told its impossible because the place doesn't exist so you can't sue.) It happens in other parts of life as well, look at any human research. I work on a project studying young children. Occasionally when walking around town one of these children will run up to me and say, "hi." I'm still not allowed to turn to the friends walking next to me and explain how I know the kid. Eventhough they know what I do for work and would have no other reason for a 5 year old to know my name.

There are detailed policies for classified information and what's allowed to be released etc. It's a slippery slope if they start making exceptions because someone leaked the files.

What is the content being denied and the reasoning for the denial? Shame causing a national security risk?

Somehow, I think these documents should be revealed to government; in America, that means WE the People (or at least, the lie we are told for people to use in arguments that reinforce their flawed conclusions).

This is preceisely the thing that disgusts me about politics and which compells me to equate it with hypocricy - plain and simple. What difference does it make weather you 'officially' admit it or not. It is almost as if unless you officialy admit it, youare somehow immune from the consequences of it. The fact is already well known that you did it. Your avoidance or denial of it is only going to make you look even a bigger fool and highlight your deception and misdoings. Te point is, that an aceptance is really moost in as far as the issue or the consequences of it are concerned. The issue does not 'require' an acceptable to become credible. It already is credible beyond any doubt. Acceptance only serves as an aknowledgement that acts as a starting point to get things back on the right track. Clearly chosing any other course but acceptance (unless you have a counter proof to prove your innocese and false implication), is actually demonstrating that you have no wish to put things right. In personal relationships, this would be where the other party shows that smirk.

I wonder why go through all this drama in the first place. Just plain admit it. After all, nobody can do anything about it. USA is after all, the Super Power.

From the article:“In recognition that courts are generally ill-equipped to second-guess the Executive’s opinion in the national security context, ‘the government’s burden [here] is a light one,’” she wrote, citing a previous case involving the ACLU.

This is what bothers me the most here. It was my understanding the three branches were meant to keep each other in check. From what this judge says, it sounds like the courts have failed in their duties to the country under the Constitution and they acknowledge that failure. Sounds like time to reformat and reinstall the judicial branch.